Barnum v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr. — Feb. 2016 (Summary)

RETALIATION AND THE ADA

Barnum v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr.
No. 15-3450 (6th Cir. Feb. 19, 2016)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a medical center with regard to a CRNA’s claims that she was retaliated against in violation of the First Amendment and discriminated against in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). After exhibiting concerning work-related behavior, including expressing suicidal ideation to coworkers, the medical center required that the CRNA undergo a psychiatric evaluation. The CRNA was placed on paid leave and was told that she could return to work after clearing a fitness for duty examination by a psychiatrist of her choosing if the psychiatrist discussed his findings with the chief of the anesthesiology department. Eventually, the CRNA’s paid leave expired and she was moved to unpaid leave. The CRNA was ultimately reinstated after satisfying the conditions related to the psychiatric evaluation.

Nonetheless, the CRNA sued the medical center claiming that it retaliated against her in violation of the First Amendment for protected speech regarding privacy practices. The CRNA filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), alleging that the medical center violated federal standards by not restricting her protected health information from being shared and used by her husband. The court of appeals rejected this claim, concluding that the retaliation of which the CRNA complained, including placing her on leave, all occurred before she lodged the complaint with HHS. The court of appeals also rejected the CRNA’s claim that the medical center violated the ADA by requiring her to submit to a medical examination. The court of appeals noted that the inability to perform routine tasks and expression of suicidal thoughts “constitute[d] significant evidence that would cause a reasonable person to inquire whether the employee is still capable of performing her job.” Accordingly, the medical examination requirement was held not to have violated the ADA.